Standardization of global hip fracture audit could facilitate learning, improve quality, and guide evidence-based practice

Johansen, Antony, Hall, Andrew J., Ojeda-Thies, Cristina, Poacher, Arwel T. and Costa, Matthew L. 2023. Standardization of global hip fracture audit could facilitate learning, improve quality, and guide evidence-based practice. The Bone & Joint Journal 105-B (9) , pp. 1013-1019. 10.1302/0301-620X.105B9.BJJ-2023-0281

Preview

PDF - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives. Download (387kB) | Preview

Abstract

Aims National hip fracture registries audit similar aspects of care but there is variation in the actual data collected; these differences restrict international comparison, benchmarking, and research. The Fragility Fracture Network (FFN) published a revised minimum common dataset (MCD) in 2022 to improve consistency and interoperability. Our aim was to assess compatibility of existing registries with the MCD. Methods We compared 17 hip fracture registries covering 20 countries (Argentina; Australia and New Zealand; China; Denmark; England, Wales, and Northern Ireland; Germany; Holland; Ireland; Japan; Mexico; Norway; Pakistan; the Philippines; Scotland; South Korea; Spain; and Sweden), setting each of these against the 20 core and 12 optional fields of the MCD. Results The highest MCD adherence was demonstrated by the most recently established registries. The first-generation registries in Scandinavia collect data for 60% of MCD fields, second-generation registries (UK, other European, and Australia and New Zealand) collect for 75%, and third-generation registries collect data for 85% of MCD fields. Five of the 20 core fields were collected by all 17 registries (age; sex; surgery date/time of operation; surgery type; and death during acute admission). Two fields were collected by most (16/17; 94%) registries (date/time of presentation and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade), and five more by the majority (15/17; 88%) registries (type, side, and pathological nature of fracture; anaesthetic modality; and discharge destination). Three core fields were each collected by only 11/17 (65%) registries: prefracture mobility/activities of daily living; cognition on admission; and bone protection medication prescription. Conclusion There is moderate but improving compatibility between existing registries and the FFN MCD, and its introduction in 2022 was associated with an improved level of adherence among the most recently established programmes. Greater interoperability could be facilitated by improving consistency of data collection relating to prefracture function, cognition, bone protection, and follow-up duration, and this could improve international collaborative benchmarking, research, and quality improvement.

Item Type:	Article
Date Type:	Published Online
Status:	Published
Schools:	Medicine
Publisher:	British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery
ISSN:	2049-4394
Date of First Compliant Deposit:	15 March 2024
Last Modified:	02 Apr 2024 13:57
URI:	https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/166942

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item